Human Nature, Government and Individual Rights

Behind the notion of checks and
balances lay a profoundly
realistic view of human nature. While Madison
and Hamilton
believed that man at his best was capable of reason,
self-discipline and fairness, they also recognized his
susceptibility to passion, intolerance and greed. In a famous
passage, after discussing what measures were needed to preserve
liberty, Madison wrote:

It may be a reflection on human nature
that such devices
should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But
what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on
human nature? If men were angels, no government would be
necessary. If angels were to govern, neither external nor
internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a
government which is to be administered by men over men, the great
difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to
control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control
itself.

In the most striking and original of The Federalist Papers
(Number 10), Madison addressed this double challenge. His
central concern was the need "to break and control the violence
of faction," by which he meant political parties, and which he
regarded as the greatest danger to popular government: "I
understand a number of citizens ... are united and actuated by
some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the
rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate
interests of the community." These passions or interests that
endanger the rights of others may be religious or political or,
most often, economic. Factions may divide along lines of haves
and have-nots, creditors and debtors, or according to the kinds
of property possessed. Madison wrote:

A landed interest, a manufacturing
interest, a mercantile
interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up
of necessity in civilized nations, and divide themselves into
different classes, actuated by different sentiments and view.
The regulations of these various and interfering interests forms
the principal task of modern
legislation...

How can fair, rational and free people mediate so many competing
claims or the factions that derive from them? Since it is
impossible to outlaw passion or self-interest, a proper form of
government must be able to prevent any faction, whether minority
or majority, from imposing its will against the general good.
One defense against an overbearing faction, Madison said, is the
republican (or representative) form of government, which tends
"to refine and enlarge the public views by passing them through
the medium of a chosen body of citizens," who are likely to be
educated men of good character. Because elected representatives
are at some distance from mass sentiments, they will probably
also have a larger and wiser outlook.

But even more important, according to Madison, was broadening the
geographic and popular basis of the republic, as would happen
under the national government proposed by the new Constitution.
He wrote:

As each representative will be chosen by
a greater number
of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be
more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success
the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried....
The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their
particular States but will be unable to spread a general
conflagration through the other States.

What is being urged here is the principle of pluralism, which
welcomes diversity both for its own sake as a testimony to
individual variety and freedom, but even more crucially for its
positive effect in neutralizing conflicting passions and
interests. Just as the great variety of religious faiths in the
United States makes unlikely the imposition of a single
established church, so the variety of states with many divergent
regions and concerns makes unlikely the national victory of an
inflamed and potentially oppressive faction or party. A
confirmation of Madison's argument can be found in the evolution
of the major American political parties, which have tended to be
moderate and non-ideological because they each encompass such a
diversity of sectional and economic interests.